Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

locri t1_j74fzhz wrote

Besides the consistent shade on libertarians, I can't find many firm claims to argue against. Just got to say, if someone says "please leave me alone" and they walk alone, the belief that this is an infringement of your rights would be bizarre. It's not a great answer, but I must have the right to walk away, I must have the negative right away from people who feel entitled to whatever I have.

This isn't "property rights" it's simply an argument against being a greedy dick... And it's the entirety of libertarianism.


contractualist OP t1_j74itpb wrote

It depends, There would be cases where one may not have a right to walk away (say, the person is being arrested for a crime) or someone else's rights might trump the right to walk away (for instance, if a parent is trying to walk away from a child).

The ethical standard we use to specify and prioritize rights are found in the social contract, which is based on freedom and justifiable reasons to require duties from others. The article explains that rights aren't intuitive. The thousands of pages of contract law, property law, criminal procedure law etc. aren't intuitive. They are based on reasons that justify imposing duties onto others.


acutelychronicpanic t1_j76vt5v wrote

The social contract is an after-the-fact justification rather than the basis for society.


bumharmony t1_j77dsbo wrote

The only system that is coherent is then free grabbing of everything. That is the only real ex ante view to how societies necessarily begin.

But still one gets eventually shot for doing that?

How you make a theory of justice in this question begging framework of having legal right to ”protective violence” and gatekeeping all of the resources?


VitriolicViolet t1_j78yrhz wrote

>How you make a theory of justice in this question begging framework of having legal right to ”protective violence” and gatekeeping all of the resources?

'liberalism' in a nutshell.


bumharmony t1_j7alals wrote

Also statism in general.

Classical liberalism at least theorizes from a prestate scenario. Unlike statist theories. Maybe you just don't understand the concept.


locri t1_j74qy7p wrote

Negligence is a little difference as it involves an action first to create the situation in which walking away is immoral. Truly an exception that proves the rule, without prior action and intentions behind those action then any claims of rights violation are probably a form of rights violation themselves.

As in, claiming someone isn't your slave and giving you free food becomes a rights violation because you're fabricating their responsibility with the intent of depriving them of the ability to simply walk away. Something similar happens when states build walls to keep people in. This is why a standard of guilt is necessary in this argument.

And finally why I stand by my right to walk away until you prove this responsibility was voluntarily chosen with informed consent.


contractualist OP t1_j74t5oq wrote

And what is the basis for exceptions to the rule? It would have to be ethical principles as well.

The same goes for consent, as I describe here, (are we talking about informed consent, implied consent, consent with attorney representation, consent under duress, etc).

The basis which we determine exceptions to rights, like the right to freely walk (or someone else’s right to stop you) or where consent isn’t necessary or sufficient to create an agreement, is the social contact, which is made up of publicly justifiable reasons.

All rights require a duty to be imposed on someone else. And those duties need to be justified. Again, they aren’t intuitive. It’s not as simple as stating “just don’t be a jerk.”


locri t1_j74ucs2 wrote

Mens rea and actus reus is the basis.

It's very basic, you can even find similar ideas in Nietzsche's beyond good and evil because these aren't value judgements or moral rulings. If you're involved, you're involved and that's why it's an exception.

I'm not involved in the pains of randoms, I may feel empathy and I may want to help (often, it's more uncomfortable to not help) but I'm absolutely not obliged and my charity shouldn't be a granted, as the soft slavers I'm describing beleive it is.

> All rights require a duty to be imposed on someone else.

You should have listened to libertarians more before trashing.

An obligation is a positive right, as in you have a right to something and the addition is positive. Negative rights have absolutely no implication of duty, you don't have a duty to fuck off my property and stop spray painting my property, you should just not and doing not costs you absolutely nothing.

But if you continue, then you are now involved with me against my will and I therefore have an obligation to uninvolve you.. By calling the fucking cops.

Because it's absolutely free and easy to not feel entitled to my property. Again, this is why property rights are a thing... Because fuck off.


contractualist OP t1_j74wy4z wrote

Mens rea and actus reus only refer to mental states and actions. Different crimes require different mental states and actions, so they aren’t helpful for actually shaping criminal law. They’re just legal elements (and this only applies to criminal law).

Involvement is determined by proximate causation, which would depend on reason-based factors (intentions, foreseeability, geography, etc.) Again, it’s not intuitive and even the rights that seem straightforward tend to have exceptions. For instance, you won’t have the right to kick someone off of your property if they have taken that property through adverse possession (which also depends on reason-based factors). The standard which we can say an act is right or wrong is based on social contract principles. Simply declaring rights isn’t helpful for the specification, prioritization, or genealogy problems I discuss in the piece. Libertarianism fails to address these problems.


locri t1_j74ybj5 wrote

One references an action, the other references the state of mind. It is a near perfect theory that encompasses the physical and mental and provides me with one fool proof answer that you still haven't address. It even criminalises pollution, as to pollute knowingly is an action.

And it is the basis of a standard of guilt.

But what do I owe without action? The answer is nothing, or, no more than anyone else. This is the perfect negative right, until you convince me of a responsibility which almost certain demands the physical proof and an evaluation of my guilt before the standard is achieved.

This is how libertarianism addresses the problem. It does so by reminding you what slavery is.


WhittlingDan t1_j78lv21 wrote

I asked this elsewhere but could you please give me the definition you hold and use for what libertarian is?


WhittlingDan t1_j78llxl wrote

Can you please give me the definition you hold and use for what libertarian is?


[deleted] t1_j76wlto wrote

If a factory spews so much pollution that literally the entire planet's air is less fit for breathing, how will you walk away?

There are actions from which it's impossible to walk away.


hononononoh t1_j77f1i4 wrote

The whole notion of “externalities” — recipients of one’s actions that can be safely disregarded and walked away from without consequence, troubles me deeply, and very much puts the “dismal” in “dismal science”. We clearly evolved in a world where externalities abounded, and could be counted on. Is our species capable of handling a world where there aren’t, and cannot be, any externalities? I hope so, but I’m not at all sure.


WhittlingDan t1_j78kr4o wrote

Not all libertarians believe in "private property" and "property rights" the same way. I'm a libertarian socialist. As a socialist I distinguish between private and personal property.


locri t1_j78s5wy wrote

And how would you stop someone owning private property whilst maintaining the word "libertarian"?


VitriolicViolet t1_j78zs3d wrote

same way Libertarians stop someone from owning the majority of resources and becoming a dictator: 'optimism'.


WhittlingDan t1_j79w2cx wrote

Im not here to explain away ignorance relating so socialism/capitalism and personal property/private property.